Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

but also the opinion of other TCs that you know who held a more negative view of the UN Plan.

I voted no to the Annan plan

I did so essentialy not because of what was actualy in the plan, but because of the way the plan was brokered and because of the external pressure that was placed on Cypriots to accept it.

At the end of the day the question I was asking myself was, is this a solution born out of a genuine widespread desire of Cypriots to be united and live togeather in peace and with mutual respect or was it a plan born out of a desire by the rest of the world to declare the Cyprus problem 'solved'. In the end my opinion was that is was the latter of these two and as such I could not muster the sufficent 'faith' that such an 'imposed' solution would not lead to a repetion of the disaster of the past in one form or another.

[metecyp]

In the end my opinion was that is was the latter of these two and as such I could not muster the sufficent 'faith' that such an 'imposed' solution would not lead to a repetion of the disaster of the past in one form or another.

I respect your concerns but do you believe that GCs and TCs can alone solve this problem? I believe that the two sides are very apart from each other and if let alone, no side will agree to come to the middle. A third party, like the UN, should always be involved to mediate the process. I mean did you really expect that Tasos and Denktash could have agreed on a final plan? If they were left alone, and if Annan did not fill the spaces in the plan, we wouldn't even had a plan to have a referandum about.

As a side note, a final solution will not satisfy one or the other side. When the expectations are so different, the final outcome is going to be ugly for both sides and this is something that we have to be ready to deal with.

[pantelis]

Erol,

is this a solution born out of a genuine widespread desire of Cypriots to be united and live togeather in peace and with mutual respect or was it a plan born out of a desire by the rest of the world to declare the Cyprus problem 'solved'. In the end my opinion was that is was the latter of these two and as such I could not muster the sufficent 'faith' that such an 'imposed' solution would not lead to a repetion of the disaster of the past in one form or another.

I share your logic and reasoning. I would like to remind you that the 1960 agreements were developed and finalized in the same fashion. The only difference then, was the people of Cyprus were not given the chance to understand the agreements, nor they were given the choice of approving their future through a referendum.

Who were the losers and who the winners with the 1960 "independence"?

Who would have been the losers and who the winners, with the implementation of the Annan plan?

Are the answers the same, in both cases?

[pantelis]

Bananiot,

Do you think Papadopoulos has the stomach to enter into negotiations to find a solution based on the A plan? To me this is walking on clouds. Papadopoulos will not accept the plan because he has a different agenda on his mind. He was always for a solution that keeps the TC's a minority and now he thinks that membership in the EU will help him realise his vision. This man will never accept the TC's as an equal partner. He will never accept political equality for the two communities. The points you raise are very good but, alas, only as a theoretical exercise. Also, are you claiming that Anan plan no. 5 called for only 40 000 settlers to remain? If this is the case get ready for ... intense shelling.

You know the saying, "the one off the dancing floor, knows all the dances".
If you were in Papas shoes now, what would you do? Please tell us.

[erolz]

I respect your concerns but do you believe that GCs and TCs can alone solve this problem? I believe that the two sides are very apart from each other and if let alone, no side will agree to come to the middle. A third party, like the UN, should always be involved to mediate the process.

I have no problem with, and accept the value of a 'mediator' in any negotiation process between GC and TC. For me I guess however as far as the annan plan goes the UN's role crossed that fine line from 'mediation' into 'imposition' and that is where my concerns stemed from.

I mean did you really expect that Tasos and Denktash could have agreed on a final plan? If they were left alone, and if Annan did not fill the spaces in the plan, we wouldn't even had a plan to have a referandum about.

I agree with you here. However for me this is an indication that we were simply not ready to re unite.

As a side note, a final solution will not satisfy one or the other side. When the expectations are so different, the final outcome is going to be ugly for both sides and this is something that we have to be ready to deal with.

I guess for me what is needed in such a senario is not the 'forcing' of acceptance, but first a changing of these different expectations. Having said all of the above and generally spreading 'doom and gloom' I do think that the yes vote from the TC represented a very real indications that the expectations of the TC side were and are changing.

I share your logic and reasoning. I would like to remind you that the 1960 agreements were developed and finalized in the same fashion. The only difference then, was the people of Cyprus were not given the chance to understand the agreements, nor they were given the choice of approving their future through a referendum.

I agree that the 1960 agreements were developed and finalised in the same fashion and this is what gives me so much cause for concern over a future 'settlement' that follows a similar line. If the Annan plan had been the 'first' attempt at a solution then I do not think I would have voted no to it. I think that I would have been able to muster sufficent faith that such a process of 'enforced settlement' could lead to a truly united Cyprus.

Although not really the point I am making here it can be argued (and has been argued by some) that presidential elections that made Makarios the first president of Cyprus were an effective referendum (of the GC) on the 1960 agreements. I also think there is little doubt that if a referendum specificaly on the 1960 agrements had been held then there would have been popular support (from GC and TC alike) for it. Like I say I would probably supported such an imposed solution in the first attempt. However given where that solution led I am not so willing to try such a route again.

So in summary for me the starting point has to be to look at our respective expectations and to find and work (hard) towards finding ways (on both sides) of changing these popular expectations. This is a process that in the main has not even started , as far as I see the situtation, and as such in this sense I think we are no nearer a lasting solution than we were in 1960. These are depressing thoughts for me

PS as to your questions 'who where the winners and losers of the 1960 settlement' - the only answer that can be given with hindsight imo is that the ultimate loosers were Cypriots, on both sides, and none more so that those who lost loved ones, for nothing has more value than human life (imo). My fear with the Annan plan (and the reason for my personal 'no' vote) was that once again Cypriots would end up being the losers.

[Bananiot]

Veto Pantelis. I would veto the efforts of Turkey to get a date. There is a demonstration today in Nicosia calling for veto. It is supported by all the Presidents' men. This would be the only course left to take for Papadopoulos, otherwise he would be denying himself. Otherwise there is no point in his policy ever since he became President. Of course I am not in his shoes, thank God, not because I am scared of the challenge, but because I have never involved myself in acts of terrorism against any community in Cyprus nor do I suffer from the syndromes that seem to rule his life.

Am I outside of the dance floor? I do not think so. I live in Cyprus and I have paid a huge price for the division of the island. I have been dancing since I can ever remember ...

[brother]

Tasos will make us all losers in the end with his polocies.

[michalis5354]

Tasos wants to ensure that Turkey will be committed in solving the Cyprus issue after the 17th of December. At the moment this is what he is working for!

Remember this is a date to start negotiatiations its not the actual membership. I heard an interview with R.T.Erdogan saying that after 17th of Dec Turkey will examine again all pursued policies and take appropriate measures.

[brother]

We all understand that but is tassos commited to solving the cyprus issue, what can we do to put him under pressure to ensure he is 100% committed to, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO springs to mind.

[turkcyp]

Papadapulos do want to solve the Cyprus problem. Anybidy claiming otherwise is simply wrong. Denktash also wants to solve the Cyprus problem. And coincidentally their approaches to Cyprus problem is very very similar. "My way or the highway".

One wants fully integrating of TCs into RoC as minority, which is the best case scenario for GCs. The other wants to seperate states in Cyprus, which is best case scenario for TCs.

They both employ maximalist wishes when solving the Cyprus problem and there is nothing wrong with wanting what is best for your community at the maximum. At this regard I respect both of them.

What I disagree with them is that, their wishes is not suitable to international political conjucture, and will not happen in the short run. In the long run there can only be one winner if you apply their approaches. Either Papadapulos, or Denktas' views will be true in the long run if teh current status-quo linges on and on.

Apparantly Papadapulos thinks he is right, and so does Denktas. And I happen to agree with Denktas. In the ling run, if the status-quo lingers on his views will be the winner.

But the problem is at what price. Does it worth paying all that high price and wait for both GCs and TCs to achieve their maximalist views, and even that without a certainty that you will achieve those views. That is the only differnece. For some people "The juice is worth the squeze" for many it is not.

Many believe that the price to obtain maximalist desires is to high too pay so that is why many people support continuation of negotiations, and settlement.

Papadapulos on the other hand is employing a very risky trick, of trying to involve EU into the picture to obatin its wishes for his community. But the problem with that he is not realizing that this is really irritating its negotiation partners which in the long run is making things even harder to solve. If he really thinks that EU is going to one day risk his own interests with Turkey, for the interests of population of 600k ( I don't know what was the latest population in GC so if wrong forgive me) then he is really mistaken.

But when he realizes that he will loose what he has. In Turkish we say "Dimyata pirince giderken, eldeki bulgurdan olduk", which means we were not happy with what we have and in trying to get a better deal we also lost what we have.

As I always say, time is the answer to all questions. We will wait and see.